Precisely determining and documenting "cousin"
relationships can be difficult, especially between genealogists and
non-genealogists. But even genealogists occasionally have difficulty
explaining and understanding family relationships.

There are several reasons for the confusion. Frequently, the
major cause is the convoluted nature of many family relationships,
which can easily involve multiple spouses, one person with children by
several different individuals, extended members of the family living in
the household, relatives by marriage becoming confused with relatives
by blood, and so on. It doesn't help when a widowed family member then
marries another non-blood family relative.

In addition, there are different ways by which "cousin"
relationships are determined. One method frequently used is what I'll
call the "removed" system of determining relationships. I had never
heard of this system until I started doing genealogy; in my own
background, determining the degree of cousinship was a simple matter of
counting down the generations—the "counting" system.

Both systems agree on what a first cousin is: two individuals
who share a grandparent. I'm not going to make a distinction between
those "first cousins" whose parents were siblings and those whose
parents were half-siblings. To introduce half-first cousins into our
discussion would only muddy already murky waters.

And so it goes. Caroline's children and Thomas would be sixth
cousins.
This system basically counts a degree of cousinship for each individual
in the chain, counting back from the common ancestor. This system is
easy to count. One significant drawback is that one cannot determine
exactly how far back the common ancestor is solely from the degree of
cousinship. For example, Anne and Thomas are third cousins; Bruce and
Theodore are third cousins; and Caroline and Oscar are third cousins.
This is one reason the system is confusing.

Using the Removed System

Anne and Oscar: first cousins
Anne and Theodore: first cousins, once removed
Anne and Thomas: first cousins, twice removed

Bruce and Oscar: first cousins, once removed
Bruce and Theodore: second cousins
Bruce and Thomas: second cousins, once removed

Caroline and Oscar: first cousins, twice removed
Caroline and Theodore: second cousins, once removed
Caroline and Thomas: third cousins

To keep things straight in my mind, I think of cousins without
any
removed notations as "pure" cousins (this does nothing to indicate
their moral qualities). "Pure" cousins are the same generation of
descent from the common ancestor. In the example above:

Bruce and Theodore are both great-grandchildren of the common ancestor.
Their parents shared one set of grandparents.

Caroline and Thomas are both great-great-grandchildren of
the common ancestor. Their grandparents shared one set of
great-grandparents.

In some cases, an easier way to chart the relationship is to
do the
following:

How Important Is All of This?
Frankly, I'm not certain. I think that instead of saying someone is my
third cousin, it would be better to say we share a
great-great-grandparent—or perhaps that our great-grandparents were
siblings. That's easier for most of us to understand. Besides, I may
have MANY third cousins, all of whom are great-great-grandchildren of
one of my great-great-grandparents (remember, most of us have 16
great-great-grandparents). Indicating our common ancestor makes our
connection easier to understand.

Does Cousin Always Mean First Cousin?
Absolutely not. Many times the word cousin indicates that two
individuals who are "cousins" share some common ancestor. In earlier
times, the word cousin may indicate other relationships, occasionally
even one that's not by "blood." Cousin can be a vague term, and
one should not always assume that two individuals who are "cousins"
shared one (or even two) grandparents.

What about Double Cousins?
This situation occurs most frequently when siblings from one family
marry siblings from another family. The resulting children are double
first cousins, because they share all four grandparents (assuming that
each set of siblings shared both parents). When multiple relationships
are involved, determining the exact relationship can be difficult, and
it may be necessary to simply use multiple terms to describe the
multiple relationships.

Can It Get Even Worse?
The following example uses the "removed" system and comes from my own
research. In this example, no one married his (or her) own relative.

My grandfather and a female relative were first cousins (his father and
her mother were siblings).

My grandfather and this female relative were also second
cousins (his maternal grandfather and her paternal grandfather were
siblings).

My grandfather and this female relative were also third
cousins (his maternal great-grandfather and her paternal
great-grandfather were siblings).

I have numerous double cousins on my father's side because
three of the
children of my great-great-grandfather married three of the
grandchildren of another great-great-great-grandfather. And I have more
double cousins on my maternal side than I can even count. Sometimes
figuring out the relationships is more difficult than problems I had in
logic class!

If you can't spout off exactly where fifth cousins, twice
removed connect, it's OK. Remember, it's better to be able to DOCUMENT
the relationship than to be able to remember it off the top of your
head.

Michael John Neill, is the Course I Coordinator at the
Genealogical Institute of Mid America (GIMA) held annually in
Springfield, Illinois, and is also on the faculty of Carl Sandburg
College in Galesburg, Illinois. Michael is the Web columnist for the FGS
FORUM and is on the editorial board of the Illinois State
Genealogical Society Quarterly. He conducts seminars and lectures on
a wide variety of genealogical and computer topics and contributes to
several genealogical publications, including Ancestry Magazine
and Genealogical Computing. You can e-mail him at mneill@asc.csc.cc.il.us or
visit his Web site.